7.11.2008

Surprise Endings

The following is an opinion piece from the "letters to the editor" department in the Richmond Times-Dispatch. It is in response to an earlier article about the support for Intelligent Design.

Of the eight scientists mentioned by name, four work for the Discovery Institute, a group whose purpose, stated in a once-secret document, is to "replace materialistic explanations with the understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

Two of the scientists seem rather extreme, and one other takes a moderate position and advocates testing Intelligent Design (ID) before teaching it in schools.

On the subject of peer-reviewed articles, Michael Behe said, during the trial of Kitzmiller vs. Dover, "There are no peer-reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments." Behe is one of ID's most important figures.

The writer sounds like he has his facts down and has a better understanding of the evolution/ID controversy than most people. As I read on, I could quibble with some of the points, maybe change something here or there, emphasize this and not that, etc. So, it was just minor editorial nits but basically the argument was sound.

Then, at the end of the article, I was shocked to read this:

It is unscientific to teach so flawed a theory as ID. You should test theories before, and not after, shoving them down the throats of students.